One of the things I've enjoyed watching evolve is his change in attitude towards himself.

When I watch him now, he looks like he believes he truly belongs.

Amen to that, and it is, at least I think, the area where he has improved the most.

Another area where I think Andy has improved is the way he tolerates errors now, at least most of the time. Look at the semi with Federer, Andy made a lot of UE's, because he was being aggressive and going for it. The Andy of old couldn't bear to make mistakes and would be all over himself for it, and would probably have reverted to passive play to cut down on the UE's. However, there was none of that in the semi. Instead, he seemed to be able to accept that he would make errors because he was going for it, and it helped to get him the win.

It's funny, but Frew McMillan kept saying that as Andy's forehand has improved, his backhand has gone backwards. I'm not quite sure. All I know, and I'm no expert, is that Andy's forehand is vastly better now. Even I can see it. I love the way he trusts it now, commits to the shot, even on the big points.

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that the second serve just needs to be consistently good. Sometimes now, Andy makes it well. Other times it is, at best, average. However, Andy's first serve was fantastic at the AO. I think the way he was mixing it up was brilliant. I also thought it made sense to get into games by not going for it too much with the first serve initally, and then giving it some to finish off. It did wonders for his FSP's through the tournament.

I am not sure where to put this. I have just been looking up some interesting facts about Andy.First British man to Wimby Final since 1938, first Gold Medal since 1908, first GS since 1936 and first Scot ever. First man to ever win the gold medal and then the US GS. Second to be in 3 consecutive GS Finals. First man to be in the next GS final after winning his first one. This seems a pretty impressive record to me. We should definitely be very proud of him. Perhaps a newspaper should print these facts.

I’d probably undermining some of the other matches but for me Andy vs Federer semi was the best match of 2013 so far and that’s because not only it was played by two top players but also, it had very high quality all throughout; not to mention, appropriate amount of drama, tension, twists and turns.

Sorry EJ, I didn't see this comment the other day, but just wanted to say I agree. For me it proved a few points about where Andy is. Firstly, Andy was considered by a lot of people to be the favourite in this one, and he handled that by getting the win, thus showing that being considered favourite is no longer a problem. Andy demonstrated that he can now be aggressive, can take matches to those considered the very best and come out on top. Also, no one can say with any sort of seriousness that Federer was injured, excessively tired, or didn't feel like winning, all things that were said after the Olympics. As if a demonstration was needed, Andy showed exactly where he is now.

Andy was honest in being the first to say that he should have finished Federer off in four, but I look upon it as a learning experience. Also, winning in three was possible, but in a way I'm sort of glad he didn't, even if it cost him the final. I think it's good that Andy knows now that he can go five sets with Federer, can be the better player throughout, but can also handle it when Federer comes back at him. The way I look at the semi is quite simple. Federer didn't win two sets. In reality he won two tie-breaks. Andy was breathing down his neck all match, it's as simple as that.

I'm quite sure Federer would love passive Andy to come back. I must admit I take a certain amount of pleasure in the thought that Federer probably realises that won't happen. With his experience he must know that. The way Federer got so upset during the semi is a testament to how Andy is playing now. It was the same in Shanghai to be honest. Federer just can't handle it emotionally now that Andy will not back down.

More generally, I'd love to see Andy at the net a bit more. He's got such great hands, better than Djokovic's in my view, so I think getting in there a bit more would make him tough to beat. Either way, I don't think there is much between him and Djokovic.

I really am quite keen to see Andy play Nadal again, but preferably not on the clay. I watched Andy beating Nadal in Japan in 2011 on DVD last night. Andy's play in the final two sets was fantastic, and Andy is better than that now.

"He recently said "No-one comes into net anymore," but this was not the case in the AO final with Novak Djokovic. Nole came to net several times, and it paid dividends for him. Andy has beautiful hands at net. Should he use them more?Andy's speed is phenomenal and he is in incredible shape, but do you think he is becoming a little muscle-heavy whereas Novak is more lean and flexible?"

Yes, especially to the first point scotnadian. I love the natural way Andy plays at net, which we see most of when he's on grass. But I'd like to see him use his skills more on other surfaces.

To the second point, I do think maybe he is a wee bit bulky but he's strong and fast so this issue isn't that much of a big deal to my mind.

I'd also say "hear hear" to BBH's point that Andy could go DTL more. Both he and Nole can open up the whole court for themselves with that shot; it's amazing.

Andy's first serve % and forehand have improved tremendously, so that's great. And his 2nd serve has also improved but perhaps could still be a bit stronger. But it's not the liability it once was methinks.

Apparently Federer misses the good old passive Andy. He said he almost had to play a chess game against him to win a match.

I know I am repeating what many of you have said, but boy, this is ironic. Fed criticized Andy's more counter-punching style in the past; I believe it was after a loss to Andy in Dubai, maybe 2008. Fed said things like "his game hasn't evolved" and he's not going to be able to win playing like that consistently, and so forth. They were quite negative comments and they came after a loss. Recently, however, Fed says he "misses" Andy's old style of play and calls it "a chess game", and this comes, once again, after a loss, but this time after a loss to a more aggressive Andy. So which is it Fed??

I also think Andy could've finished off Fed in straight sets; this is not Fed's best surface (he plays much better at Wimbledon and the USO imo; Nole has straight-setted Fed twice in semis at the AO). Andy could have won it at least in 4 sets, imo, but I think he lost his concentration near the end of the 4th. Wasn't that right around when Fed swore at him? I think so.

His enormous flexibility is Nole's trademark and will never be reached by Andy. Often I despair about his getting back every single shot. I have wondered if Andy tries to make up for it by putting on more muscles. His thighs appear rather heavy, which I do not appreciate too much. In the final I often wanted him to go for his shots to shorten the rallies. And Nole's recipe to come to the net paid off for him, unfortunately, something Andy could also have done from time to time. Though, I really like his "new" massive forehand.

Yeah the 4th set was frustrating to say the least, having crawled back from 1-4 down to serve for the match at 6-5 then to lose the tie break - unfortunately for Andy his TB record against Fed is garbage, but on a good note, it did not effect his state of mind much and he played arguably his best stuff in the 5th

^ Very true about the 5th set; it was nice to see Andy put that 4th set loss behind him and keep digging in.

In the final, I do think the loss of the 2nd set somewhat took the wind out of Andy, perhaps because his blisters were aggravating him. But even then, look at when Nole was serving for the match; Andy was still digging in for every shot. He wasn't giving up easily at all. That fight and the positive reaction to the loss overall are good signs of another way in which Andy's game has evolved: mentally.

^ Very true about the 5th set; it was nice to see Andy put that 4th set loss behind him and keep digging in.

In the final, I do think the loss of the 2nd set somewhat took the wind out of Andy, perhaps because his blisters were aggravating him. But even then, look at when Nole was serving for the match; Andy was still digging in for every shot. He wasn't giving up easily at all. That fight and the positive reaction to the loss overall are good signs of another way in which Andy's game has evolved: mentally.

Andy did go to play this match with the mindset to win it. That should have been the attitude and that was the attitude; hence he was still fighting until the end. However, he was having a hard time out there connecting his game mentally. The version we saw wasn't the true version of Andy as he was both mentally and psychically compromised because of his huge victory over Federer in the semi. Let's not forget Federer denied 3 Slams from Andy. That Wimbledon final was especially disheartening for Andy as he broke down completely when he was being interviewed on the court after the match. Nadal has yet to let Federer win a match over him in a GS since 2008. Imagine the toll it will take on Federer if he does indeed beat Nadal finally in a GS, if that happens at all. It's a mental injury if we remember Fedreer breaking down equally at the 2009 AO final after losing his 3rd final in a row to the same guy. 3 Slams had been lost as well but at least in Federer's case he already had so many Slams behind him; whereas Andy was still looking for his first Slam and being slaughtered by media, commentators by his own people no less every time he lost yet another final. So it matters and it mattered in Andy's case far more. This is no excuse. I've made same arguments in Nole's favour when he lost RG last year to Nadal. I thought his win over Federr in the semi was huge and it took a lot out of him. I found him less than 100% in the RG final in other words. I've given similar favours to Fedrere in fact and Nadal as well in the past. I don't make excuses but it does frustrate me when I see people being very superficial. I prefer seeing great insights rather than dueling on the surface and blaming things that are secondary.

Andy did go to play this match with the mindset to win it. That should have been the attitude and that was the attitude; hence he was still fighting until the end. However, he was having a hard time out I connecting his game mentally. The version we saw wasn't the true version of Andy as he was both mentally and psychically compromised because of his huge victory over Federer in the semi. Let's not forget Federer denied 3 Slams from Andy. That Wimbledon final was especially disheartening for Andy as he broke down completely when he was being interviewed on the court after the match. Nadal has yet to let Federer win a match over him in a GS since 2008. Imagine the toll it will take on Federer if he does indeed beat Nadal finally in a GS, if that happens at all. It's a mental injury if we remember Fedreer breaking down equally at the 2009 AO final after losing his 3rd final in a row to the same guy. 3 Slams had been lost as well but at least in Federer's case he already had so many Slams behind him; whereas Andy was still looking for his first Slam and being slaughtered by media, commentators by his own people no less every time he lost yet another final. So it matters and it mattered in Andy's case far more. This is no excuse. I've made same arguments in Nole's favour when he lost RG last year to Nadal. I thought his win over Federr in the semi was huge and it took a lot out of him. I found him less than 100% in the RG final in other words. I've given similar favours to Fedrere in fact and Nadal as well in the past. I don't make excuses but it does frustrate me when I see people being very superficial. I prefer seeing great insights rather than dueling on the surface and blaming things that are secondary.

I so wish you wouldn't be so wordy and just condense your thoughts a little. I don't understand what you're trying to say?

but it does frustrate me when I see people being very superficial. I prefer seeing great insights rather than dueling on the surface and blaming things that are secondary.

I didn't think I was being superficial, if that's what you're saying. I have suggested that it could've been his blisters here that held Andy back in the final, but on other threads I have also acknowledged that the win over Fed was huge for him mentally and so yes, I agree that he may've been unable to get to full capacity in that regard for the final.

Since this thread is about "the evolution of Andy's game," my point was mainly that mentally, too (in addition to other points both I and others had mentioned), Andy has transformed. His reaction at the end of the match seemed very collected, and to me that bodes well. So does getting that win over Fed at a slam (a mental step, and one which was particularly evident in his 5th sets versus Nole at USO and Fed at AO).

He's got a win over both Fed and Nole at slams now. Next up - Rafa! I hope Andy can begin to turn around that H2H.